Mikael Grizzly said:
which makes ghouls mutants then ... I am ... so ... confused ... argh
Trying to play F3 in a fluffy (canon) way
- Thread starter Servius1234
- Start date
which makes ghouls mutants then ... I am ... so ... confused ... argh
They aren't different races, just as black people aren't a different race.
Look, you need to look at the entire term.
Not mutated humans.
Not mutated humans.
Mutated humans.
They are a different kind of human, but not a different race. You don't call mentally handicapped people a different race just because they aren't like regular humans. You don't call burn victims a different race. So why should ghouls or supermutants be?
Look, you need to look at the entire term.
Not mutated humans.
Not mutated humans.
Mutated humans.
They are a different kind of human, but not a different race. You don't call mentally handicapped people a different race just because they aren't like regular humans. You don't call burn victims a different race. So why should ghouls or supermutants be?
TyloniusFunk
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Are we confusing "race" and "species"? Brahmin are a mutated species originating from cows. They aren't cows anymore. There was a cow that was mutated, and when it bred and it's progeny possessed the mutation they were the first of a new species. Therefore brahmin aren't mutants, but an "evolved" species. Aren't humans just mutated apes?
Nullifidian
First time out of the vault
Mikael Grizzly said:
Uh, actually race is based on genetics.
There are actually 3 human races:
Caucasoid - native Europeans, middle easterners, natives of the Indian subcontinent (Indians, Pakstani, etc.)
Mongoloid - most asians (chinese, japanese, korean, mongolian, NOT Indian though), Native Americans
Negroid - African, Australian aborigines.
And yes, there are in fact some big genetic differences between these races. Ask any pharmaceutical researcher. Clinical trials for some drugs have drastically different results on different races. So much so that for Japan for example, if you want to be allowed to sell a drug in Japan, you must prove that it is safe and effective specifically on Japanese people. As a result, there are drugs which are available in Japan but not available elsewhere, and visa versa.
That being said, Ghouls and Supermutants are not races. They are subspecies. If they are incapable of mating with a regular human being and producing fertile offspring, they they are an entirely different species alltogether. By definition, if two species cannot mate to produce fertile offspring, they are different species.
TyloniusFunk
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Nullifidian said:
Amen
It's funny how this thread is turning into a racial discussion.
I see it this way
1. Ghouls- mutants (mutated human DNA), which were just called "Ghouls"
- feral ghouls
- glowing freaking ones
- ...
2. Super Mutants- mutants too (but differently mutated human DNA), which are just called "Super Mutants"
3. Humans- humans (human DNA)
- black
- white
- blah, blah, blah
4. Others (dogs, apes, etc)
I think there are all different species, because their DNAs cannot be mixed (naturally). And SM and Ghouls were just orriginated from Human's DNA by mutation, which created a different variation of it, but still it's not the same DNA.
Comparing those 3 together, and calling them all "Humans" would be like calling an ape a human, because the DNA is 93% (or something like that) close to our DNA.
The colour of the skin is like the colour of hair, they are just some parts written on the DNA. And in Human example, on the Human DNA.
Ghouls and SM have probably different DNA (because of mutation), but even when it's based on human DNA, it's not human DNA anymore.
I see it this way
1. Ghouls- mutants (mutated human DNA), which were just called "Ghouls"
- feral ghouls
- glowing freaking ones
- ...
2. Super Mutants- mutants too (but differently mutated human DNA), which are just called "Super Mutants"
3. Humans- humans (human DNA)
- black
- white
- blah, blah, blah
4. Others (dogs, apes, etc)
I think there are all different species, because their DNAs cannot be mixed (naturally). And SM and Ghouls were just orriginated from Human's DNA by mutation, which created a different variation of it, but still it's not the same DNA.
Comparing those 3 together, and calling them all "Humans" would be like calling an ape a human, because the DNA is 93% (or something like that) close to our DNA.
The colour of the skin is like the colour of hair, they are just some parts written on the DNA. And in Human example, on the Human DNA.
Ghouls and SM have probably different DNA (because of mutation), but even when it's based on human DNA, it's not human DNA anymore.
Nullifidian said:
They *can* mate, but due to damage (FEV-II sterilisation and radiation destroying gonads) they can't reproduce.
And I loathe the term race. There is one race, the human race.
Because they still come from the same base DNA?
Nullifidian
First time out of the vault
Ad Astra said:
Wrong.
Race is subordinate to species and superordinate to subrace. It is a subclassification the same way family genus is superordinate to species and subordinate to family, and so on.
With respect to humans, racial differences can be somewhat equated to the differences found in different breeds of dog. In fact "breed", "subspecies" and "race" are actually all biological synonyms.
Racial classification only becomes difficult for humans in modern society because of advancement in social norms and concepts of equality among all humans. Under previous conditions, the different races fit the definition of subspecies rather closely. Subspecies need only meet 2 rather loose requirements.
1) any two subspecies groups, in order to be classified as different subspecies must have easily recognizeable physical differences. Whether it be different different number of teeth, different hair texture, different skin coloration, different skull structure, whatever.
2) In the event of close proximity of groups of 2 seperate subspecies, there must not be a tendancy for mixing of society or races.
Number 2, in modern day, is a racist concept. In not so ancient times back to the dawn of mankind, it was the norm. As in, people of 2 different racial groups tended greatly to distrust one another, that intermingling of the two groups wasn't common and frequently was only for basic trade or war, and mating between the two groups was virtually unheard of. In fact, number 2 was satisfied in most cases even without number 1 being satisfied.
In fact, biologists tend to prefer to use the term subspecies rather than race since race has certain connotations and the fact that race has multiple meanings and is thus a less precise term to use.
The problem arises however with the rather loose definition of subspecies and that technically one could argue there are smaller populations that fit the criteria. Then again, the same could be said of much of taxonomy. It's not a terribly exact science.
In any case, just because something comes from a particular genetic base doesn't mean it remains the same species. Ghouls and Supermutants are not human anymore.
we should not mix the term "race" in with humans though as that is pretty controversial at one point. The term was many times used in a offensive way by certain groups.
And I personaly do not believe that there are "sub species" or "races" ammong the homo sapiens. We are definetly ONE single race in my oppinion
Different races in the family of homo are a different issue though as one can see here
Homo rudolfensis †
Homo habilis †
Homo ergaster †
Homo georgicus“ †
Homo erectus †
Homo rhodesiensis †
Homo cepranensis †
Homo antecessor †
Homo heidelbergensis †
Homo neanderthalensis †
Homo floresiensis †
Homo sapiens
We have different classifcation for all the members of "homo" but no real biological defintions for the differences in the family of Homo Sapiens Sapiens
See also about Homo sapiens:
Race and ethnicity
Humans often categorize themselves in terms of race or ethnicity, sometimes on the basis of differences in appearance. Human racial categories have been based on both ancestry and visible traits, especially skin color and facial features. The patterns of human genetic variation, however, correspond poorly with visible morphological differences. Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa. Current genetic studies have demonstrated that humans on the African continent are most genetically diverse. However, compared to many other animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous. The predominance of genetic variation occurs within "racial groups", with only 5 to 15% of total variation occurring between groups. Ethnic groups, on the other hand, are more often linked by linguistic, cultural, ancestral, and national or regional ties. Self-identification with an ethnic group is based on kinship and descent. Race and ethnicity can lead to variant treatment and impact social identity, giving rise to racism and the theory of identity politics.
And I personaly do not believe that there are "sub species" or "races" ammong the homo sapiens. We are definetly ONE single race in my oppinion
Different races in the family of homo are a different issue though as one can see here
Homo rudolfensis †
Homo habilis †
Homo ergaster †
Homo georgicus“ †
Homo erectus †
Homo rhodesiensis †
Homo cepranensis †
Homo antecessor †
Homo heidelbergensis †
Homo neanderthalensis †
Homo floresiensis †
Homo sapiens
We have different classifcation for all the members of "homo" but no real biological defintions for the differences in the family of Homo Sapiens Sapiens
See also about Homo sapiens:
Race and ethnicity
Humans often categorize themselves in terms of race or ethnicity, sometimes on the basis of differences in appearance. Human racial categories have been based on both ancestry and visible traits, especially skin color and facial features. The patterns of human genetic variation, however, correspond poorly with visible morphological differences. Most current genetic and archaeological evidence supports a recent single origin of modern humans in East Africa. Current genetic studies have demonstrated that humans on the African continent are most genetically diverse. However, compared to many other animals, human gene sequences are remarkably homogeneous. The predominance of genetic variation occurs within "racial groups", with only 5 to 15% of total variation occurring between groups. Ethnic groups, on the other hand, are more often linked by linguistic, cultural, ancestral, and national or regional ties. Self-identification with an ethnic group is based on kinship and descent. Race and ethnicity can lead to variant treatment and impact social identity, giving rise to racism and the theory of identity politics.
Crni Vuk said:
Amen to that!
But genetically Ghouls and Super Mutants aren't humans. They are Ghouls and Super Mutants.
But they cannot reproduce not because their dicks have been cut off, but because they cannot, genetically, reproduce. And genetically means, written on the DNA code.
Yes, from the same base DNA, but there is a theory (just like the whole evolution thing is a theory), which says every DNA on this planet originated from one/main DNA.
BloodyPuppy
Look, Ma! Two Heads!
Can't we just say that ghouls and super mutants are both mutants, just mutated in different ways?
Since every super mutant and ghoul originated from a non-mutated human, they are both very definitely mutated creatures, ie mutants.
However mutant or mutie tends to be a colloquial term for differentiation. After all, most wastelanders have varying degrees of mutation, and are thus mutants. They are not called such, however, because they remain human in appearance.
If you do Moira's mission and become highly radiated, she says you have mutated. You still appear human, however, and thus people wouldn't call you a mutant (if they didn't know you were).
However mutant or mutie tends to be a colloquial term for differentiation. After all, most wastelanders have varying degrees of mutation, and are thus mutants. They are not called such, however, because they remain human in appearance.
If you do Moira's mission and become highly radiated, she says you have mutated. You still appear human, however, and thus people wouldn't call you a mutant (if they didn't know you were).
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Great for you, you're wrong. There are two know subspecies of Homo sapiens: Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo sapiens sapiens. Among Homo sapiens sapiens (humans) there are mutations which are not universal and which are unique to certain groups, what are true races. The earlier classification of only three races is (genetically speaking) wrong simply because there is not only one "Negroid" race, there are many races indigenous to the different parts of Africa due to the highly sedentary nature of humans in the region, likely due to the fruitfulness of the area which lacked any requirement for migration.Crni Vuk said:
I was only partially wrong in equating the terms "race" with "species" and you are correct; "race" is more accurately equated to "subspecies." From the glossary of Biological Anthropology (Stanford, Allen and Anton): "In biological taxonomy, same thing as subspecies; when applied to humans, sometimes incorporates both cultural and biological factors."Nullifidian said:
Race exists as a cultural construct but not as a biological construct, as all modern humans belong to the same species (Homo sapiens) as well as the same subspecies or "race" (Homo sapiens sapiens).
I'll say once again that your three races concept is out of date as it is based on the Multiregionalism Model of the development of Homo sapiens. In a nutshell, Multiregionalism proposes that modern humans originated from three stocks of Homo erectus (or archaic Homo sapiens, depending on who you ask): an African type, a European type and an Asian type. Now, there is some physical evidence that supports the Multiregionalism Model, but significantly more physical evidence, as well as much more reliable molecular evidence, strongly supports the Replacement Model, more commonly known as the "Out of Africa" model.
As with all scientific theories and hypotheses, the Replacement Model isn't perfect and has its fair share of flaws, but as it stands it is the best explanation we have for the development and dispersal of modern humans.
Oh, and Super Mutants and ghouls may or may note be human. We should get to work on sequencing their genomes.
The issue is that already the term "race" is not really defined in the use of either Homo Sapiens or Homo Sapiens Sapiens. Most of the time the term is used in a racist meaning (which is not the case here though).UncannyGarlic said:
The question is why it doesnt get clearly defined as such then, neither in biological science nor popular culture? There are differences for sure but they are not as big between like Homo Sapiens and Homo neanderthalensis or Homo heidelbergensis that in the later cases even make it very doubtfull if a mixing between them is possible cause of extrem physical and even genetical differences (not impossible probably but very unlikely since even after almost 60 000 years of coexistent no one found a clear hybrid)
The Homo Sapiens among each other do not feature that much differences between them like the domestic dog for example where in many cases alterations took place that sometimes even makes breeding between each other (at least physicaly) impossible. When you talk about "Negroid" race* and the diversty I think its hard to realy get a classification here cause its extremly difficult to find any real homogeneous features that are a biological distinction and not culturaly [like the Foot binding in ancient china or the afrikan Surma which count as "populace"]. Even with such visual differences (without cultural bearing) genetic commonness is very high.
It is a controversial topic. But I think the small genetic divergency (which is extremly small compared to most animals) makes it feasible to talk about one single race cause regardles of the differences "usualy" [if one excludes cultural differences and such] to accrete with each other is possible.
*Homo sapiens idaltu seems from what I can see not to exist in this form anymore which I think only shows even more that the Human race how they consist today can be seen as "one" race. I think all today living people can be summarised as "modern human" (which science many times does)
"Despite the archaic features, these specimens are postulated to represent the direct ancestorsof modern Homo sapiens sapiens which, according to the "Recent African Origin (RAO)" or "Out-Of-Africa" theory, developed shortly after this period (...) in Eastern Africa,"
Though I dont see what this all has to do with Ghouls (homo sapiens radioactivensis ?) anymore :p